1987 (1) TMI 272 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal against imposition of penalty and duty for storage of molasses in kaccha pits without proper approval under Central Excise Rules 9 and 47.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal was made against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) based on the violation of Rules 9 and 47 due to the storage of molasses in kaccha pits. The Assistant Collector imposed a penalty under Rule 9(2) and demanded duty on the molasses. The initial question was raised regarding the admission of the appeal due to the relatively low penalty amount of Rs. 2000.

2. The Respondent's Advocate argued that no duty was demanded under the show-cause notice, and the penalty was sought to be imposed under Rules 9(2) and 173Q. It was contended that the kaccha pits used for storage had been approved by the department earlier, hence no violation occurred. The Respondent further argued that the department initiated action prematurely, even though they were operating as per the approval of the proper officer.

3. The Appellants' representative stated that the molasses were not removed from the factory premises but stored in unapproved kaccha pits, leading to a violation of Rules 9 and 47. However, the duty was not quantified at any stage, and the Collector (Appeals) noted that there was no demand as per the show-cause notice. The quantity of duty could be calculated based on the known quantity of molasses mentioned in the notice.

4. The Tribunal observed that the ground plan, including the kaccha pits, had departmental approval during the relevant period. Therefore, storing materials in the kaccha pits did not breach Central Excise Rules 9 and 47. The allegations against the Appellants were deemed baseless, and the order of the Collector (Appeals) was upheld.

5. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that there was no evidence of unauthorized removal of materials, and hence, a penalty under Rule 9(2) or 173Q could not be imposed. The department's appeal was found to lack merit, and the improper language used by the Executive Collector in the appeal submission was criticized for lacking respect towards another officer.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Collector (Appeals) and rejected the appeal, emphasizing the importance of maintaining decorum and respect among officers even in cases of disagreement.